My opinion: No, it cannot be learned but the skills required can be manufactured.

What do I mean? I'm referring to making canned answers--something I've discussed in previous posts at length and won't go into detail for the time being. If you follow my strategy meticulously, and it will take you a ton of time throughout the semester and well into finals, you won't run into the problems you detail at length in your original post.

Specifically, you (likely) won't be bogged down in senseless claims because you'll know the law better (from writing your own personal "treatises" keyed to your professor) and will be able to dispense with them sooner. Law school exams are not a forum for creativity, and you won't feel the need to distinguish yourself in that manner when your use of this method will provide an independent and impressive way to do so--if you do it right, you'll be one of the few people in your class using string cites with signals, etc.

Further, even if you do waste time discussing nonsense, you'll have time for it if you can type fast. This method essentially allows you to type detailed (pre-prepared) articulations of the rule before jumping into your analysis. Since you won't have to reinvent the wheel in stating the rule, you'll really only need to "write" the issue/analysis/conclusion section from the IRAC paradigm. And while you type your rule into your exam, you'll think of new points you'd perhaps missed initially. In my experience with this method, I managed to get an A+ on a three hour exam after losing 30 minutes at the beginning due to computer malfunction. I was so freaked out that I couldn't read the questions, write or think until my computer was fixed by the tech; so I sat there, waited for it to be repaired, and was able to finish an exam most of my peers couldn't complete EARLY (and with the top grade) simply because I had my rule sheet handy.

That sounds like a cumbersome method. A 2L at my school told me that she went through the Property exam and literally honed in on every instance of possessory interest. (Do they own the seagull? Do they owe the fence? Did they adversely possess that painting? How would the discovery or New York rule apply?) It sounded like a big headache to me.

Torts responds well to checklists, too, but beware that categorical advice doesn't work all that well in Law School. Try it with some classes, do it differently with others. I would NOT use a checklist, for instance, in Crim.

Yes, you can learn from this and improve. Go talk to your profs and figure out why what you said wasn't what they were looking for. From my experience, if you spot a legit answer that the prof had not thought about, you will get points for it. So go talk to your profs, it will really help.

BTW, if this is not just short hand for our reading pleasure and you actually wrote sentences like this: ("Not battery between Jane and John. Neither contact nor intent can be established at all.") This would be one of the first places to start. This type of sentence can hurt on an exam.

Judging from the sheer length of your post, my advice is to not write so much.

I second. "Brevity is the soul of wit."

Also, remember that you are taking the professor's exam. If, for example, you are taking a contracts course where the professor won't shut up about UCC 2-207(b), there is a good chance that an issue on the exam will deal with this. I suppose it is easier said than done, but try to keep the major points your professor hammered at the front of your mind while looking for issues.

hopefully this advice isn't completely worthless. cheers.

Credited. I wrote in black marker on my Civ Pro binder "There WILL be ERIE!" for my exam, because I knew my professor wouldn't overlook it. I think that reminder saved me... because the Erie issue was very subtle on the exam.

The only thing I can think of from your prof comments together with your RIL comment is that you discussed a lot of issues that were not worth talking about. If you do that, you may demonstrate to your professor that you don't really "get" the question. If you talk about RIL when it is clearly not an RIL issue, for example, all that you have demonstrated is that you memorized the law but have no clue how to apply it.

The only thing I can think of from your prof comments together with your RIL comment is that you discussed a lot of issues that were not worth talking about. If you do that, you may demonstrate to your professor that you don't really "get" the question. If you talk about RIL when it is clearly not an RIL issue, for example, all that you have demonstrated is that you memorized the law but have no clue how to apply it.